Talk:Cate Blanchett

Older comments

She's going to star as Bob Dylan in an upcoming bio pic? She's a great actress guys, but starring as Dylan? I don't think so.

It's true: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368794/ Of course, it's a Todd Haynes picture, so anything is possible! Cabiria 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think she's "starring;" she's one of about 7 actors who'll play Dylan at different periods of his life. She'll be portraying a specific aspect of his personality, from what I've read, sort of his feminine side is the sense I got. Sorry, don't know where I got this info. She'll pull it off too, you know she will.67.170.176.203 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF

okay it says this at the top of the page: She is one of very few people to win at least one each of all four major cinema awards, an Academy Award, The Golden Globe, The SAG Award, and The BAFTA

okay lots and lots of actresses have won an Academy Award, Golden Globe, SAG Award, and BAFTA i don't think that it worth mentioning here as it not written on there pages82.22.206.205 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"australian academy award-winning actress"

i changed it round, cos i'm guessing australia has its own academy, and that could cause confusion.

An additional hyphen would also work: Australian Academy-Award-winning actress. SteveRamone 17:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Cate Blanchett "alters the pronunciation of her last name every third time she says it."

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/bigpicture/index.cfm?bigpictureID=165

Is this really true? I've heard it pronounced a few different ways, most commonly with a slight stress on the first syllable. SteveRamone 17:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards list box

Some awards are listed most recent first, and some most recent last. I think it should be consistent, but different people have different preferences on this. In there a standard?Sterry2607 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere people hold forth a consistency for this information. Even in some articles, the order of awards conflicts itself, like Meryl Streep. However, IMO I am inclined to earlier awards being listed first, as we can see in many other ones. I fix the box now, if anyone disagrees, I'm open to be reverted. @pple complain 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant section

Recently someone has added Awards and nominations section. In fact, this section used to be included months ago until I removed it because I felt it was a redundancy of information. All the awards and nominations are clearly mentioned through the notes of the Filmography, as well as in the succession box. Should it be removed again? @pple complain 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw this, and it essentially makes it the third listing of awards. I've removed it. The infobox listings and the filmography listings are enough. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

anyone going to add a picture? does any one have one or know of one in the public domain? Adaircairell (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is sad that no free "nice enough" picture is available. I'm trying to contact with Cate's fan community to ask them permission for one of their images now. It may take time to get it done. @pple complain 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stunning Pic on Italian Commons

Hey - found a brilliant picture here, but it's on Italian Commons - could someone add it to US/UK commons and then add it to the page? Adaircairell (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cate's Parents

Does anyone know the maiden name of Cate's mother? I've never stumbled across it and I'm writing an article on her life. Thanks- Samantha555 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates?

An editor has decided to add categories that regard expatriates living in different countries, one of which is this article (and two others related to Lord of the Rings - Ian McKellen and Liv Tyler) here. I removed it and approached him on his talk page about what I believe is a misuse of the the term and category. My rationale on the edit summary for the removal was because the article does not support the assertion that Blanchett has ever been an expatriate living in New Zealand. An addition of a statement with a source that says she worked in New Zealand when the category was returned here still does not support the assertion that she was an expatriate, nor that she still is.

{{RFCbio | section=Are actors who worked on location in another country other than residence considered expatriates? !reason=Rather than get into an edit war on this, I am opening a request for comments. An editor has decided to add categories that regard expatriates living in different countries, one of which is this article (and two others related to ''Lord of the Rings'' - [[Ian McKellen]] and [[Liv Tyler]]) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cate_Blanchett&diff=249779002&oldid=249158601 here] and again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cate_Blanchett&curid=160126&diff=249967925&oldid=249790818 here] after I removed it and approached him on his talk page about what I believe is a misuse of the the term and category. My rationale on the edit summary was because the article does not support the assertion that Blanchett has ever been an expatriate living in New Zealand. ! time=03:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)}}

My position on this matter is this: Based on the definition from wiktionary, "Expatriate: 1. One who lives outside one’s own country. 2. One who has been banished from one’s own country."

That a person stayed in a location while making a film does not make them an expatriate nor a resident of that country. Even if by some stretch of the imagination they could have been considered an expatriate while filming Lord of the Rings or any other film, that ended some years ago, and they are no longer in New Zealand. By that faulty logic, you would be working non-stop to add expatriate categories to hundreds of articles to encompass each and every actor who lived in a country temporarily while filming a picture. At the point that such categories are added to articles based on an actor working on location for filming, the meaning of such categories are perverted from their actual meaning and become overburdened, and completely useless and meaningless. Such a categorization is inappropriate and misapplied. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. The categorization is not appropriate and should be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, staying in a country while you are working does not constitute being an "expatriate". The definition of expatriate is someone that takes up residence there (residence does not constitute staying at a local hotel, or renting a house as you're a guest and not a resident of the region). I think we need not confuse "living in a country" with "staying in a country". When you're there for a couple of months, that isn't taking up residence. Now, if you're there for a couple of years, then you're talking about a move that will most likely require one to uproot their family for the duration of the stay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The above statement says it all. The category should be removed from each article and shouldn't be added back. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 04:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything that has been said. There is a great difference between temporarily visiting a country to work, and residing in a country. I'm sure if their visas were available to us, we'd see McKellen and Tyler had some kind of conditional work visa, and Blanchette as an Australian citizen wouldn't have needed one, but the point is they were only there for the duration of filming and then moved on. Travel is such a common thing, especially within the film industry - how many countries would these three alone have visited or worked in during their careers? It's completely illogical to consider them as expatriates of any countries other than those in which they have obtained legitimate (ie recognised by the government of that country) resident status. I think the categories should be removed and the articles monitored. Rossrs (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As another watcher of the Blanchett page I concur. The Wiktionary definition alone makes it clear. Complicating factors might be where people have homes in more than one country - many celebrities in particular have homes in more than one country but having another residence on its own wouldn't qualify them as an expat. The point, if we can determine it and we can't always, is where is their Primary Home. Clive James, Geoffrey Robertson, Peter Carey to name some clearly live elsewhere and visit Australia, but Blanchett lives in Australia traveling overseas to work and then returning here to her home base.Sterry2607 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And as an actor, I most definitely agree. Certainly one may temporarily reside in another country while woking there... film or otherwise, or even while vacationing. But such does not make one an expat. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've worked in Berlin, Avignon, Strousburg, Seoul, Singapore and London on more than one occasion, but I was never at any time an "expatriate", I was merely an American working outside his country. My father-in-law, on the other hand, lived for many years on Paros, a Greek island, and Istanbul - and when he did he was an expatriate. Someone who's in another country for a limited period of time, even an extended limited period of time, to make a film, is not in any way, shape or form an expatriate. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything stated above, but can't help but wonder . . . isn't Wikipedia overloaded with enough categories without adding "Australian expatriates in New Zealand," "Australian expatriates in the United States," "Chinese expatriates in Afghanistan," and the like? Where does it end? LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, LiteraryMaven. We do suffer from a proliferation of categories. I think the only solution is to challenge categories when they pop up and proceed from there. In this case, they aren't, in my opinion, even valid, and this RFC seems to support that. My one personal bugaboo is the ever-increasing number of navigation boxes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Answering the RFC: if the issue hasn't been settled the answer is certainly not an expatriate.--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who added their viewpoint. The RFC outcome is 9 against this usage of the term, and 0 for it. Apparently the original editor who insisted on this addition has chosen not to voice his or her opinion on the matter, it has been removed, and will be for any other article where this rationale has been used, based on this RFC. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Insightful?

"Opening the 2008 9th World Congress of Metropolis in Sydney, Blanchett was insightful: `The one thing that all great cities have in common is that they are all different.'[19]"

Apart from the complete banality of Blanchett's comment, isn't this sentence just personal POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.123.187 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC) I suspect given the comments someone was taking the piss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.90.180 (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved comments on "actress"

Actor/actress

Just a note that the wording on Cate Blanchett was changed based on WP:GNL which states: Examples of non-neutral language that can often be easily avoided are: Uncommon gender-marked terms (conductress, career woman, male nurse, aviatrix), with the possible implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate. Blanchett's occupation is as an actor, for which she won awards. For example, at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, introductions at the beginning of the broadcast uses the terminology "I'm Eva Longoria Parker and I'm an actor." Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such implication of her participation being "uncommon"; all of her awards are entitled "actress" awards. This change twists the policy. "Actress" is in common usage throughout the awards. She is a female actor, for which the word is actress. Gender neutrality is recommended in other situations of "generic" usage. There is no "implication that the participation of the subject's gender is uncommon, unexpected or somehow inappropriate"; this is a matter of common sense and common usage and what Eva Longoria Parker (who is also defined as an "actress" in that article on her) says at the beginning of an award ceremony does not change the name of all the awards given for her and others' roles as "best actress", "best supporting actress", etc. It is non-neutral to go against common usage. I left "actor" as profession in the infobox; but Blanchett and these other female actors are still most commonly referred to as "actresses" in the English language, and this is English Wikipedia. It should not have been changed before as "actress" had been stable for some time.

[I changed the occupation back to "actress" in the infobox too, as that is consistent usage throughout other Wikipedia articles for actors who are female and are thereby called "actresses". [see below] Consistency in Wikipedia is important.--NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)]

If you look at my own userboxes, you will see that I favor gender-neutral language (for use when the gender of a person is unknown, etc. following also the WP that you mention). In this instance, of a known female person for whom common usage in awards ceremonies uses the term "actress", I see no breach of gender neutrality at all. It is a common sense description of a female actor, for whom the word is "actress" in the English language, without any offensive "implication." --NYScholar (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For related examples, with no offensive "implication," see Renée Zellweger, Michelle Williams, and other actresses (female actors) throughout Wikipedia (see the others in the chart of awards for Blanchett and click on them) who have "actor" infoboxes. One should not be misled to engage in an editing war or crusade to change all these common usages of the word "actress" throughout Wikipedia. You seem to be misreading the intention of the policy that you cited. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert your changes, I did the courtesy of leaving a note for you to explain why I did it. I'm not misreading anything, nor am I misled into engaging in an edit war or crusade, thank you very much. On several articles that I watch, the terminology was changed to the gender-neutral term a long time ago with editor agreement. A newer editor changed the terminology on the Cher and Angelina Jolie articles (and did so more than once on the latter despite the talk page discussion about this point), at the same time he made other infobox changes on the Blanchett article. I mentioned the Screen Actors Guild and Eva Longoria Parker because a) that specific awards broadcast has used the gender neutral terminology for some time now, and in fact, do not use the word "actress" in their awards, and b) Parker was the first female I saw on my recording who spoke, although all do with that broadcast. I didn't make a big issue of it, please extend the favor of not doing so either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did notice (and appreciate) that you didn't revert my restoration of actress, which had been changed by an earlier user. The statement re: "one" in my comment above is not personally directed toward you, but toward anyone who might want to engage in that activity. But I do still think that you misread the policy, given the prominence of the word "actress" throughout all these actresses' biographical articles. The awards listed (see "show" in the infobox") all list "actress", though I've checked and see that one award (one) (Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role) does not actually use it, and I'll change the link previously provided by earlier editors to the exact name of the award. The majority of the awards (all the others) all still use actress, as listed throughout. --NYScholar (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --NYScholar (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hair washing

Hi user Lavidaloca,

As per the comments added to the discussion page on 'hair', why the blinkered view and the determination to have this info removed without giving others the chance to voice an opinion? At least one other person has looked at this after it was added and can see the relevance of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

LaVidaLoca has the right to add or remove information the same as any other editor, and her decision - supported by an edit summary, that I happen to agree with - is no more "blinkered" for removing the point, than your viewpoint is in restoring it. I could say the same about "determination", but enough about editorial behaviour. We should be discussing only the information added/removed. I don't see the relevance. If the relevance isn't demonstrated in the article, it need not be included. It looks very random, and the fact that the statement was made two years ago, and nothing further has resulted ..... are we to assume Cate hasn't washed her hair in two years? I don't get it. Why is it relevant?

If you refer to the original source, The Daily Telegraph, and read Cate's remark in full and in context, it has a somewhat different meaning. She says she keeps to a time limit when showering and therefore thinks about skipping washing her hair. She doesn't say how often she does this, and the hair washing bit reads like a flippant aside. It must be, because she OBVIOUSLY has washed her hair since 2007. The article also goes on to give something a bit more substantial about Cate's promotion of the "Australian Conservation Foundation's online campaign, her fears for her children's futures in the event of further damage to the environment and specifically the impact of the Australian drought that triggered her initial comment. All of which are far more consequential and could be given here with more weight and accuracy than "...Cate Blanchett joined the discussion on hair washing. Blanchett announced that for environmental reasons she would not wash her hair." (which again, is not what she said - or "announced"). There never was a "discussion on hair washing" for Cate to join. She was discussing her steps towards minimalising her impact upon the environment, and she mentioned her hair, which is a different thing entirely, and it's a shame that tribute.ca decided to abbreviate her comments and make it about hair washing. She's concerned about the environment, and she uses her public profile to raise awareness. In that regard she's similar to many other major or minor celebrities with an opinion about the environment, and if it's not reported in a more scholarly and informative context, and remains as a factoid about hair washing, I can only repeat, "I don't see the relevance". Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see by your edit history that you have an interest in hair washing. If you haven't already, I think you should read WP:UNDUE. Rossrs (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time not only to reply but also for presenting a diligent and calm response.

Can I ask please why it's obvious that she washes her hair? Please pardon me if I've missed something somewhere.

If you take a look at hair#washing, I have added a request there for others to work on that section. I invite people to present whatever info they feel is pertinent regardless of the point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I wasn't aware of the article that you reference above. I had read the www.tribute.ca article and another that if you take a look through the article history you will see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.129.214 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. OK, why it's obvious that she washes her hair... I'm not going to get too deeply into this, but all you need to do is look at what she's done over the last couple of years and the roles she's played that have required different hair styles, colours etc. This isn't achieved without washing. Maybe she washes without using conventional shampoos etc, and that's one aspect of protecting the environment, but the earlier comment related to water usage, and basically all she has to do is stick her head under the stream of water coming out of her shower, and she's using water to wash her hair. I think to go into that point in any further depth will become an issue of semantics and the definition of hair washing as intended by Cate Blanchett. Also of significance is the time of the comment. It was made in 2007, and I tried searching google to see if there was anything more recent but I couldn't find anything, and this together with the offhandedness of the hair washing comment, also ties in with the relevance factor. Just a suggestion when looking at articles such as www.tribute.ca that provide second hand reports. It's always useful to be a little sceptical of second hand reports and try to look for the original. This can be done by just doing a google search. Not only do you get a possibly more accurate and less biased result, but in terms of citing a source, you'll have something that is better able to comply with WP:RS (plus other useful information can sometimes be obtained, that the second hand report did not convey). Rossrs (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Article picture seems purposefully tampered with

did anyone notice that the first picture on Blanchett's article has been tampered with? i think her breasts have been distorted. Submit your opinion people, if enough people agree I'll report abuse.Probably someone's idea of a joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethinker362 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a phenominal actress and all so inspiring too!

Hi Miss Blanchett, It's so nice to review ur profile as an accomplished actress. I have to admit that I'm In awe of most of ur work if not all, I too have made quite and attempt in the film industry not so long ago as an actress but not nearly as much success as you yet. Of course i'm no pesimist so i remain hopeful and steadfast. I find that the whole businesss is such a blesssing from God "I mean quite an art form that should not go unnoticed or unpunished . In short Cate, I would furthermore like to wish u continued success and lot's of longevity in the new millineum. Love and respect to both u and ur family as well . "Two Thumbs up to u!" (----). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.116.103 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I am questioning what changes were made to this article since the edit summary section was not used when the article was rewritten. I have asked the editor at their talk page at DeadSend4. I think sections were moved around but new information may have been added but I can not tell. I'd appreciate it if this editor would explain what they did so that editors watching this page understand the changes. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add my concerns about references. I checked a couple of reference and what was said in the article was not said in the reference. This is not good as we all know. This article needs all of the references checked to see if they actually represent what is said in the article. This article needs to be gone over also for possible BLP problems and other policy/guideline issues. Any help would really be appreciated. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked up every referenced, visited and read every webpage along with the quotes or statistics. If you could give me an example, or a link to that had said thing in the citation? Because I never purposely included false information, but if I may have made a mistake and added another link instead of another then please point out which one. In addition, I'm going to begin another topic regarding my proposed changes to expand her page. I see many young actors wiki pages filled with information, I came across this actress, KaDee Strickland, if you notice her page is sectioned into her life, career, lists her films, reviews, how much they made, who she starred with. But what I find odd is how relatively unknown this actress is. I wouldn't say she's too well known in Hollywood and surely hasn't been in any lead or supporting roles in the past three or four years. That's an article I came across, never edited or contributed, but that along with other actors have length and statistics regarding their films, reviews, awards, etc. Miss Blanchett's page is relatively short and this is a respected, Oscar, BAFTA, multi-Golden Globe winning actress. I'm only trying to expand to page to reflect her contribution to cinema. Even legends like Angela Lansbury to Marilyn Monroe have their accolades listed. So hopefully you (along with the other fellow editors here) can come to a compromise and have the patience to read my explanations for my edits. I feel like many young actors have an advantage thanks to the boom of social networks, finding reviews, articles, interviews, vidoes, etc. online and everywhere. Other examples with of young actors are, Mila Kunis, Evan Rachel Wood, Kristen Bell, if you look at the latter's intro, hers is longers than Blanchett's. My old edit that was reverted includes her notable films and a short summart of her chronological film career. So you see actors who made their debut prior to 2000 with little citations of lack of information other than, "She appeared in the film Bandits opposite Billy Bob Thorton". I'm only trying to include additional information about her respected career. I will list other examples in the separate section I mentioned which I plan on doing soon. Hopefully you can join me. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I await all of your responses. I am eager to get this started but I need you all on board with me so we can start. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was informed that CrohnieGal^Talk had recently been ill which is why there hasn't been a response to this page. So we will continue with this article as soon as she is feeling 100% With that said, if anyone else has any suggestions or comments feel free to let me know. I won't start on my expansion section just yet, I'm waiting until she feels better so she can go through my propositions. That is all. Just keeping everyone informed. I am really looking forward to expanding this article and collaborating with all of you. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how it's been over a week since I requested I'll go ahead and write out what I want included this week. I followed suggestions to create a discussion about my proposed changes so I hope any of you who read this - and objected to my changes, are reading. A conflict will not happen since I'm assuming everyone has read and don't have much objections to my ideas thus far. Hopefully once I implement my ideas, I'll actually get a response. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead Dead, please post you suggested text on the Talk Page first and then we can all give comments. Thanks for your efforts. --BweeB (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My expansion project and rewrite for the article

As many or those who don't many of my edits have been reverted, most notably Nicole Kidman and this very article. My edit was reverted due to "overlinking, information in the article didn't match the link" along with other issues that were brought up. Now maybe said things are true, but I did not purposely include that and if there are any mistakes that I am not aware of please inform me so we can go through with the article. I have several things I want to expand in the article as can be seen in my edit. I would like to start a detailed, section by section, sentence by sentence (if needed) to discuss my proposed changes, opinion and collaborate coming to a happy medium that satisfies our feelings towards this article.

Many of you who reverted or had a problem with my edits didn't have the time to revert at least one of my edits that had correctly sourced information. So it would be better if I just take my own time to contribute the hours of my own work into this article. I've mentioned this before, I think the major reason as to why my edits are reverted is because of the overwhelming amount of information I include during the duration of two/three days (I don't do this all at once as I've been told I do). It's kind of when an old person watches a very intense action film, they are so overwhelmed and confused with what's going on they shut off the TV and leave. Not that I'm comparing anyone to old people this was the only analogy I can think of and I had just seen a recent SNL skit. ;) People see my edits and would rather revert the whole thing rather than break it down themselves. It happens. It can also be interpreted as me trying to "overrate" or "PR" their articles. But that I'm not. I'm only trying to give the article more useful information rather than the non-informative sentence that reads, "She starred in the film The Good German released in 2004." Where my edit mentioned it was a film noir, opposite George Clooney and was a commercial and critical failure. That was an edit that was reverted. Although it expanded the miniscule sentence to include more useful information whether good or bad. Just an example of the many things I would like to contribute to this article. The amount of sentences and citations I add overwhelms everyone so I'm doing the next best thing and writing here I'm sure many of you will collaborate and thus making this article better than it currently is.

As of today I'm not going to add anything into the article I am going to wait and see what everyone's feelings and opinions are. As well as showing me examples of some of the mistakes I may have made in the article. With that said, I want everyone to take a minute and quickly glance and skim through the following articles of these actresses if you haven't. Amy Adams, Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, and Keira Knightley. What do all these actresses have in common? They are all young (aside from Adams) and have all been acting much less than Blanchett and lastly their pages are filled if not double with information, properly sourced with no hanging sole sentences in their articles. Adams in particular is sectioned and has her films and awards noted along with many other pieces of information. Again, these are all actors who have barely broken into mainstream Hollywood, and even at that have not reached in my opinion the same amount of critical acclaim that Blanchett has been receiving since 1999. Though Hathaway and Adams have recently been receiving acclaim. What's my point? These actresses have lengthy well-executed and written articles, Blanchett does not. It still looks messy and there are many citations needed (many of which I found and properly sourced but were reverted). So I am 100% certain no one here would like to keep her page short and expand it (which is what wiki does). Especially because she's one of our most respected actresses of our generation. So now that you have gone through their articles you can see the difference in format. I invite you all to help me and help the article in giving it the attention that it needs. It only took me 2 days to contribute what I did and will probably take up to half a month if we collaborate but it will be worth it in the end. :) I await all of your responses to my expansion project. Have a great weekend. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening

Currently this is what the opening of the article reads;

Catherine Élise "Cate" Blanchett (/ˈblɑːntʃ.ət/, born 14 May 1969) is an Australian actress and theatre director. She has won multiple acting awards, most notably two SAGs, two Golden Globe Awards, two BAFTAs, and an Academy Award, as well as the Volpi Cup at the 64th Venice International Film Festival. Blanchett earned five Academy Award nominations between 1998 and 2007.

Blanchett came to international attention for her role as Elizabeth I of England in the 1998 film Elizabeth, directed by Shekhar Kapur. She is also well-known for her portrayals of the elf queen Galadriel in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the upcoming The Hobbit, Colonel-Doctor Irina Spalko in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Katharine Hepburn in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, a role which brought her an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. She and her husband Andrew Upton are currently artistic directors of the Sydney Theatre Company.

This is my version of what I'd like to see;

Catherine Élise "Cate" Blanchett (/ˈblɑːntʃ.ət/, born 14 May 1969) is an Australian actress and theatre director. After appearing in theatre and several films, Blanchett came to international attention for her role as Elizabeth I of England in the 1998 film Elizabeth winning a BAFTA, Golden Globe Award and receiving her first Academy Award nomination for Best Actress. Blanchett received critical praise in several films in the late 90's and early 2000's including The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), An Ideal Husband (1999), Bandits (2001), and came to further worldwide recognition as the elf queen Galadriel in Peter Jackson's acclaimed The Lord of the Rings trilogy. In 2004, Blanchett's portrayal of Katharine Hepburn in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, brought her numerous awards including an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.

Over the past decade Blanchett has appeared in several acclaimed films including Babel, The Good German both in 2006 and the commercially successful Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button both released in 2008. She is also set to reprise her role as Galadriel in the upcoming Hobbit films. Blanchett received subsequent Academy Award nominations for Notes on a Scandal (2006), her reprised role in Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) and I'm Not There (2007) which earned her a Volpi Cup at the 64th Venice International Film Festival. She and her husband Andrew Upton are currently artistic directors of the Sydney Theatre Company. Blanchett was named TIME magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World and one of Forbes most successful female actors in the world. Blanchett's work has earned her multiple acting awards and accolades, most notably, a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, two BAFTAs and an Academy Award, amongst five nominations, respectively.

This change mentions her breakthrough role the films Blanchett followed up in the late 90's and early 2000's only noting her most notable films within those years. It concludes with her Oscar win. The next mentions her post-Oscar films, her subsequent Academy Award nominations and commercially successful films. It finally ends with her mention with her theater company and a quick mention of her accolades thus far. I await all of you opinions.

OK, well I'll be first to comment, I guess. Overall, I think you've made a sincere attempt at improving the lede, and overall I think it has merit, but it also has flaws. The structure and sequence is good. These are my concerns:

1. It should be implied that any film title mentioned is notable for one reason or another. You've tried too hard to define the notability for each one. There's too much "praise", "acclaim", "successful" etc. Sometimes less is more. Find a way of summarising the fact that she's been acclaimed and minimise it. Currently, it dominates the lede. It's not only the main theme, it's the only theme. Look at some other articles - for example her co-star Judi Dench. There's a lot of "praise and awards" but it's in context and it's measured. It's OK to discuss "praise and awards" but in Blanchett's case they are the sole focus. There's no light and shade and so the significance of her achievements tends to be blurred by repetition.

2. More than half the sentences mention some kind of award, and there are only three sentences in the entire lede, that make only statements of fact. Every other sentence is padded with some kind of praise or reference to an award or accolade.

3. "She and her husband...." should be the beginning of a third paragraph.

4. There is nothing to give any indication of what kind of actress or person Blanchett is, or what sets her apart- look at some other featured articles - Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Angelina Jolie, Anna May Wong, Priety Zinta, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Judy Garland. All of them, to some degree, give a sense of the type of person, or type of characters that makes that person distinct. They are more personalised and give a sense of identity to these people. You'll find the same thing in a lot of articles that are not featured Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Clint Eastwood (particularly good). Pick articles that have already been reviewed as good or featured and take the best ideas out of them.

5. If mentioning accolades such as Times "100 Most Influential" or Forbes most successful, a date is important. Is she the "most" this or that now? Was she 10 years ago? 5 years ago? It needs to be placed in her timeline because she's not going to be on those lists every year. If she's not at, or near, the top of the list, it shouldn't be mentioned, at least not in the lede. And seriously, please read your Time sentence again. Blanchett is wonderful, but she's not 100 people. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! This is exactly what I wanted in return. Thanks so much for the input. For the record, I think the reason why I include those words along with the main theme of her awards is because pages like Amy Adams or Marion Cotillard list such things as well so I go by those templates in a way. I'll look at those examples of some of those articles you posted, I've definitely seen Elizabeth Taylor's and Marilyn Monroe (which I mentioned in this discussion page). I just realized The Good German isn't even a well-reviewed film, not sure what I put it there in the first place. Yes I agree, there really isn't something that indicates her style. There isn't really anything, at least for me, that I can think of to describe her signature style or characteristics. Ok here is the rough draft.

Catherine Élise "Cate" Blanchett (/ˈblɑːntʃ.ət/, born 14 May 1969) is an Australian actress and theatre director. After appearing in theatre and several films, Blanchett came to international attention for her role as Elizabeth I of England in the 1998 film Elizabeth winning a BAFTA and Golden Globe Award and Best Actress. After appearing in several films in the late 90's and early 2000's including Blanchett came to further worldwide recognition as the elf queen Galadriel in Peter Jackson's acclaimed The Lord of the Rings trilogy. In 2004, Blanchett's portrayal of Katharine Hepburn in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, brought her numerous awards including an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. Over the past decade Blanchett has appeared in several acclaimed films including Babel, both in 2006 and the commercially successful Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button both released in 2008. She is also set to reprise her role as Galadriel in the upcoming Hobbit films. Blanchett received subsequent Academy Award nominations for Notes on a Scandal (2006), her reprised role in Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) and I'm Not There (2007).

Blanchett and her husband Andrew Upton are currently artistic directors of the Sydney Theatre Company. Blanchett's work has earned her multiple acting awards and accolades, most notably, a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, two BAFTAs and an Academy Award, amongst five nominations, respectively.

Am I talking to myself here guys? Seriously, a month and not one person care to comment but one. This is coming from someone who was specifically told to use the discussion page rather than make edits. I don't understand some of you, especially those who had such an issue with me. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Currently" is a WP:DATED vio. Needs to be "As of 2011," or "As of 2010," or whatever the case may be. "Notably" is POV — sentence can read "...awards and accolades, including a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame...." Also, since "awards and accolades" are plural, it's redundant to say "multiple." Less specifically, the tone seems a bit fawning. Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My issues on the this article

Off-topic discussion

So in case no one knows about the issues with this article and Nicole Kidman's regarding me wanting to contribute and whatnot. But in a nutshell I was pretty much blocked, fasley accused, badgered, blocked again all because people disagreed with my edits. Now that I'm doing the right thing and going into the discussion page in collaborating with others, what happens? I'm ignored. So now that I'm doing what was asked of me there is not one person who has even bothered (except one) which I appreciate. It makes me feel like me being blocked was for a completely different reason. I mean, I waited what over a month not ONCE touching this page and seeing if anyone had feedback. I was told to not make any edits and contribute with other people and ask for their suggestions. So it's not ok for me to touch an article but I can be ignored in the discussion? I understand --Crohnie has been in the hospital. But now that she's good now (thankfully) she's collaborating with OTHERS but not me. Isn't this kind of a slap in the face? You what upsets me the most. If I were to revert those edits to how they were previously, I can bet within 1 day they will be reverted because they were done by ME. I have never seen someone treated with such disrespect on here. Lastly, I don't want to hear the excuse "well I barely saw this" or "I forgot about this article" because it's been over a month and I have not ONCE touched this article because I wanted to RESPECT this article. Now do me a favor and try to show me some respect. DeadSend4 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Wow. So you know that an editor has been really sick and is still recovering. She's made maybe a whole dozen edits so far this month, with an average of less than two a day. Knowing that, you somehow conclude that her failure to head right over to this page to answer your question the instant she was able to get back online indicates a lack of respect for you. Who cares which articles interest her most or how many other people are hoping to talk to her, since the most important person in the world is clearly waiting, with foot tapping impatiently, at this one. If you didn't actually mean to come across as a selfish, narcissistic, entitled brat (I do have trouble believing that any Wikipedia editor is actually as whiny and self-centered as your message makes you sound), then I suggest that you re-write your comment, or even better, delete this whole section, and ask your favorite web search engine about how to write an effective apology. Everyone will put his foot in it on occasion; it only turns into a serious problem if you refuse to clean it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I also did not like seeing this section on here. I'm not active on this article, and I'm only here because DeadSend asked me for advice on the situation. I like the new intro being suggested, but obviously I am not the best person to make that determination as there are people who have worked at this article longer than I have (in my case, never). This section is just starting a fight. Not good for Wikipedia. CycloneGU (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC) And I do think the comments of my fellow editors here say it all: DeadSend4's behavior and language here show someone who is impatient and who demonstrates little respect for the fact that we are all volunteers here with outside lives — which can include illness — and that there is no deadline. Perhaps making smaller, non-controversial edits rather than a big block at once would be a good start. I would also note that he was never falsely accused of anything, as several editors and admins found his actions to be objectionable. Having borne the brunt of his actions, I hesitate to comment again, but I was asked because he's made an editor who had gone out of her way to be supportive of him feel bullied and badgered. I can only hope that the number of variety of editors who are speaking to him now help make him realize that perhaps the problem isn't the rest of Wikipedia but himself. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Tenebrae please stop trying to find ways to attack me, it would be better if you didn't chime in. We've had problems in the past and all your doing is nothing helpful. Again, let's focus on the article. I have no energy to be read a list of what I did wrong and so forth. I'm only here because I want to work with others, not to have people who never collobarated with me chime in. I am aware Crohnie is sick, but I'm also aware that I'm following her suggestions she clearly told me to do amongst others, I'm only telling her to back up what she says. Again, if the next reply that follows has nothing to do with the article, I'm not here for it. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you ask the editors that did respond to you to work with you on what changes you want to make. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I'm doing. I only brought you up because you were the one who suggested I do this and you were the one who reverted my edits. Seeing as you are not fit or in a good state of mind to collaborate with me, I'm just going to work on the article with others. DeadSend4 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)